Offences Against State

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

IPC 2022 Offences against State

OFFENCES AGAINST STATE


Chapter 6: Section 121 to 130
4 offences covered in this part.
1. Waging War
2. Assault (President, Governor etc)
3. Sedition
4. Escape of state prisoner and prisoners of war (not important at all)

WAGING WAR (Section 121)


Waging a war against the Government of India, or attempt/abetment to the
waging of such war is both covered in this section
Punishment - death, or imprisonment for life, and fine.
 Same Punishment for committing the offence yourself and also for
attempt and even abetting someone else for this offence.
Section 121A - Conspiracy of this offence is punishable with punishment of 10
years, up to life imprisonment. (No act/omission required for committing offence
under 121A)

ASSAULT (PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR ETC) (Section 124)


Whoever, with the intention of inducing or compelling the President of India,
or the Governor or any State, to exercise or refrain from exercising in any
manner any of their lawful powers, Assaults or wrongfully restrains, or
attempts wrongfully to restrain, or overawes, By means of criminal force or the
show of criminal force, or attempts so to overawe (To restrain or subdue by
fear) such President or Governor;
Punishment: term up to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Why It is not covered in assault (S.351) under ‘offences against body’?
Because when you assault such a person like president of India, that is
equivalent to offence against not just that person but that person in
‘official capacity’ and the president, governor etc represent India. So, it
is in this category i.e. ‘offences against state’

YG LAW 1
IPC 2022 Offences against State

SEDITION (Section 124A)


- Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, visible
representation, or otherwise,
- Brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to
excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India,
Punishment: From just fine upto life imprisonment + fine

Explanation 1 - The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2 - Comments expressing disapprobation (strong disapproval) of the measures
of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting
or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under
this section.
Explanation 3 - Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action
of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or
disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section

Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950)

The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that his


Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression conferred on
him by Article 19(1) of the Constitution has been violated by an order of
State of Madras by banning his paper ‘Cross Roads’.

The Supreme Court held that the Article 19(2) where the restriction has
been imposed can only be used in the cases where problem of public
security is involved. Supreme Court quashed the order of Madras State
and allowed the application of the petitioner under Article 32 of the
Constitution.

Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)

It was held that the Sedition law is constitutional and covered written or
spoken words that had the implicit idea of subverting the Government
by violent means, violent means is key here, the court limited
application of Sedition to acts involving intention or tendency to create
disorder, or a disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence.

YG LAW 2
IPC 2022 Offences against State

Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995)

After the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the accused had
raised the slogan “Khalistan Zindabad” outside a cinema hall. It was held
that two individuals casually raising slogans could not be said to be
exciting disaffection towards the Government. Section 124A was not
applied to the circumstances of this case.

S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (Judgement Peding)

In an Interim order, a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV


Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli held that all pending
trials, appeals and proceeding with respect to charges framed under
Section124 A be kept in abeyance.

The bench said in its order: "We hope and expect Centre and State
Governments will refrain from registering any FIR, continuing
investigation, or taking coercive steps under Section 124A IPC when it is
under reconsideration. It will be appropriate not to use this provision of
law till further re-examination is over"

The Court also held that those already booked under Section 124A IPC
and are in jail can approach the concerned courts for bail.

Be part of YG Law Community and make studying law easier.

YouTube: YG Law; Instagram: YGLaw.in


Facebook: YGLaw.in; Twitter: YGLaw_in

Click here to view my courses

YG LAW 3
Protect pdf from copying with Online-PDF-No-Copy.com

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy